flexibility of validation criteria.

6. Rapid Response: Procedures are not in place to expedite
changes. .

a. Process may be time-consuming (finding and notifying the
right people).

b. Must establish procedures for DAASC duty officer.

7. Foreign Military Sales: During certain situations, foreign
governments may be authorized use of F/AD I. Current procedures
do not allow for validation by foreign countries.

8. Addendum to Approved Change 9: Must modify language to
specify transactions types validated (AO_, AM_, AT_, A3_, A4_).
Also, must address acceptable means of communication (voice,
e-mail, letter backup). Procedures must be enhanced based upon

transition period and to reflect DAASC report.

9, Requisitioning without DAASC Validation: DESEX, Internet,
and direct phone calls to supply source bypass DAASC. Need to
assess impact. Use status transactions to pinpoint possible
abuse.


the change proposal are expected.

¢. Approved DLSS/DLMS Change 9, Validation of F/AD I
Activities -

1. Background. The criginal change established
an automated process to automatically validate F/AD I usage. A
table of authorized activity DoD Activity Address Codes ({BoDAACs)
maintained at the DSDC/Defense Automatic Addressing System Center
(DAASC) was planned for the purpose of automatically downgrading
the requisition priority of those requisitions which did not pass
validation. Component representatives expressed serious concerns
about pursuing implementation (documented in January meeting
minutes} and recommended an alternative approach which would
create a transition period to begin April 1, 1997, during which
the results of the edit would be output to a report. This would
provide a solid basis for further analysis and would not disrupt
critical operations. To help assess the extent of abuse, DAASC
matched priority 1/4/11 requisitions against the 1995 authorized
F/AD I DoDAACs, using historical data. on January 21, 1997,
Component representatives reviewed initial DAASC findings and
developed a report format. The inquiry showed that during the
last calendar quarter of 1996 there were 45,445 requisitions
processed through DAASC with apparent misuse of the Priority
Designator. ADUSD(L/MDM) supported the alternative procedure by
letter dated January 21, 1997 (Enclosure 8). Progress was
interrupted when it became apparent that classification of F/AD I
information would present a greater problem than previously
realized. Current DoD policy, as stated in the annual audit of
F/ADs, indicates that the identification of an activity as F/AD I
is classified. Verification of this policy was requested by
DLMSO through ADUSD(L/MDM) and is currently underway.

2. Current. Mr. Trepal provided a copy of the
Joint Staff cover memorandum forwarding the February 1996 list of
F/AD I authorized activities (Enclosure 9). The J-4
classification inquiry is ongoing with some Service respondents
requesting extensions. Therefore, programming for the DAASC
process is still on hold. After reiterating concerns (Enclosure
10), it was agreed that Components would pursue the use of
command emphasis as an interim measure which might produce
positive results, DLMSO distributed letters forwarded to GSA
(for civilian agencies) and the Coast Guard requesting corrective
action where misuse of Priority Designators was documented in the
DAASC inquiry. A similar approach will be employed by the
Services. The Components were polled to determine their support
for automatic downgrading of requisitions under the AMCL
procedures. Alithough many issues have not been resolved, only
the Army nonconcurred.




6

(Enclosure i2}. The Navy requested assistance after encountering
dues-in file errors during Consumable Item Transfer (CIT). A
Separate work session was held and the outcome reported back to
the Committee. It was determined that the problem resulted from.
a misinterpretation of the AMCL whereby new document numbers were
generated by the Navy for follow-on transactions making it
impessible for DLA to match the due-in record established under
the original document number.

ACTION: Navy will initiate corrective action.
g. Additional Discussion and Action Items

1. The Committee expressed concern that ICs for
the Plant Clearance and Automated Redistribution Supply System
(PCARSS) are being finalized outside the DLMS. Functions similar
to those in the DLMS have been mapped independently in
contradiction to the DISA/LFWG concept of maintaining a single
standard IC for like processes. DLMSO administrators will seek
additional information.

2. The Army will assess the need for
identification of the Department of Defense Identification Code
(DoDIC) for ammunition items in addition to or instead of the
National Stock Number (NSN). Current procedures require use of
the NSN when known and do not permit inclusion of the DoDIC as
secondary information. The Army will submit a change proposal if
needed.

3. DLMSO will clarify the use of ANSI terminology
“draft standard for trial use.” The DLMSO LDM will ensure that
the DLMS Vol 1 carries an appropriate explanation.

4. The Components will assess the need for
simultaneous use of the purpose code and the ownership code.
Current procedures restrict use to only one of the two data
elements per transaction. If both codes are required, the
requirement should be submitted to DLMSO as a DLMS change
proposal.

5. Global modification of DLMS ICs has permitted
use of the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System
(D-U-N-S+4) Number to identify business locations {Enclosure 13).
DLMSO/Components will assess the need to enhance the current
capability to show a DUNS Number rather that a Commercial and
Government Entity (CAGE) Code when associated with a part number
for a nonstandard item.

6. The DLMSO LDM will assess the need for
including a qualifier for Internet/world wide web address in the


Action: Components will prepare appropriate correspondence as
discussed above.

d. Service-Unique Requirements Under DLMS. The Navy ~
initiated this discussion topic in relation to conveyance of the
Navy Cognizance Symbol within DLMS ICs. The Services/Agencies
must address similar concerns with the incorporation of new or
existing Service-unique data requirements. Various technical
solutions are readily available. The Service must identify what
transactions are involved and, when possible, make specific
recommendations concerning how the data should be carried. DLMSO
will offer guidance as needed. Changes will be coordinated using
the change proposal process.

Action: The Navy will submit a change proposal for the
Cognizance Code. Other Components should address unique internal
requirements for possible enhancement of the DLMS.

e. Implementation Convention (IC) Review. The
following ICs were reviewed (Enclosure 11).

(1) TS 517 (LS18) Material Obligation Validation.
Revisions from January meeting were verified.

(2) TS 517 (LS45) Government Furnished Material
Validation. Revisions from January meeting were verifed.

(3) TS 867 (LS49) Issue. Revisions from January
meeting were verifed.

(4) TS 867 (LS26) Demand Reporting. This was a
new presentation.

(5) TS 830 (LS47) War Material Requirements.
Revisions from January meeting were verifed.

(6) TS 830 (LS47) Special Program Requirements.
Revisions from January meeting were verifed.

(7) TS 527 (LSO8) Due-In. This was a new
presentation.

Action: The above ICs will be updated as discussed and submitted
to the DoD/Federal Logistics Functional Work Group (LFWG) March
18-20, 1997. The Notice of Availability/Reply ICs which were not
completed will be rescheduled for May.

f. Due-In from Logistics Reassignment (AMCL 49A). DLA
and the Navy alone have implemented the AMCL procedures


APPROVE:
JAMES A. JOHNSON .
Director, DLMSO /

Enclosures

(Enclosures 5 and 10 are included for distribution. All others

were available at the PRC meeting. Contact DLMSO to obtain
additional copies.}


IN REPLY
REFER TO

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS
8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, SUITE 2533
FT. BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

DLMSO MAR $1 07 ~

MEMORANDUM FOR: SEE DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply
Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting, March 10-14
1997

The attached minutes of the DLMS Supply PRC meeting are
forwarded for your information and appropriate action.

PRC members should note that the next meeting is rescheduled
for May 5-9, 1997. An agenda will be provided under separate
cover.

The DLMSO points of contact are Supply PRC Co-Chairs:
Ms. Ellen Hilert, at (703) 767-6117, DSN 427-6117, or e-mail:
ellen_hilert@hq.dla.mil; and Ms. Mary Jane Johnson, DSN 427-6123,
(703) 767-6123, or e-mail: maryjane_johnson@hq.dla.mil.

Logistics Management
Standards Office

Attachment
DISTRIBUTION:

ADUSD (L)MDM
Supply PRC Representatives and Attendees

Federal Recycling Program o Printed on Recycled Paper


ANDISSV LEK LONe
© LSMaaLNI GNV ‘(0) FONVZINDOD INIOS (a) AONVZINDOD AUVWRId = THAT) LSHAAINE

sprodansuqp\sjenueunosunpyzeys:b NY GALA

at

IL

ot
12-60-96 Ells
Ploy uO. SOMLAnOY ] (CEV/q) JowUBIsaC/QIAHOY sa10J Jo VONBPITEA, ADVAVS (@ Alddns 6 6
* 8
* L
« 9
* s
* v
* €
uonvorqnd LO-L1-96 L1-€0-L6
ody, L z
80-70-96 S7-10-96
waouxuL) AoundarosicyAouaroyjaq] v Bunroday woy ay Jaquiny Uonsadsuy Surpsoooy, Laat (@ Alddns € if
WAAR
ISAMHINI aLva aLva
WADLIO waaay a@LVG| 7aaaWwon| /”iaawon
SMLVIS WILL NOLLOV | TVNOLLONAA | ALLadda | GAsSOdOud | GAAOUdaV

SHDNVHO SW1d GaAONddV



' © ISRGLINI AN () QONVZINDOD INIOF (a) FONVZINDOD AMV = THAW ISTAAINI
Suodansunp\stenueunosuyp\sreys:b NT CATT

9T-11-96
NadO XO spo smug or oBawYD | NOSUSCNAH | (@) A‘Tddns I
O1-0-96
NAdO | (CRAYD sttoumoog diosayyaseajoy ones] wt (YDS) sig UBIONY ORL AisFos 3uBIpy Jo woNwOAUAPT aDvAVS | @ Alddns ol
1-11-96 12-60-96
daA0udd¥ SORIARSY | (CIV/4) JoIUBISsaC/AstANoY ao10g Jo UoHEpIEA AOVAVS | (ad) ATddns 6 6
2EL0-96
CSTHONVO (9281498) (Ane) Buodey pusmag prepuys uN | NosNHorrN | (a) Addons 8
(@ a8meyD (dow Yas pasodorg se payg <jsnoraarg) [1-€0-26 LO-L1-96
CAAONdaV oRUaIeY ToReIuaUINoOG ‘sapod UoRIsodsic] UoHEpYosuOD AoweBY/eoIAIag ‘sOUUPINE) YCS pasary IaMH | (@) ATaans z L
92-90-96
NadO. Aomedarssicy suINjaY PSUDTEYA IaH | (@) Alddns 9
LE-€0-96
Nado. (28 SL) soromedarosic] wonmyodsuery, puw euseyy INaTH | @ ATdans s
80-70-96
Nado spoc yazac] prepumg osuazag] Jo juounredacy lam | @ Ataans v
80-20-96
CaAoNdav AoundarosiqyAoustoyacy ® Supoday wayyy Joqunyy uonsedsuy Sumpiooay, Lata! @ xtaans I €
1€-10-96
CSAOUddVSIC siuotadiys paroanpstpl 10} Bunsodey Aouedarosicy Ajddng IYaTH | (@) Atddns z
Teqe] Ssouppy WyiM juouMo0qy ST10-96
NadO | Minoo asnayayy ones] “Vz-RPET MUO CIC] puw usums0q] Wdisooyasvajsy ones] ‘eII-grel WUOIda | NosasanaH | (a) ATdans l
ISTULINI aLva aLva
Bh Fe) EF) Wad | aaawoN| AlaaWaN
SMLVIS WILL NOLLOV | TVOLLONNA | axAOuadv | aasogoud

SHONVHD SWId dasOd0ud

Bnetacuen &


PER/G62 segments.

7. The Components will review requirements for
identifying equipment as nonstandard material. The original Ic-
for demand reporting carried two qualifiers for this purpose.
One was to express the “type equipment code” and the other the
“equipment identification code”. These were standardized to
correlate with the requisition which contains only the “plant
equipment number”. There is confusion because the “equipment
type code” appears be a valid data element.

8. A DLMS Appendix D will be added to portray
standard accounting classifications as a replacement for current
AT segment information (Enclosure 14).

h. May Supply PRC Meeting. The next PRC meeting has
been rescheduled for May 5-9, 1997. Tentative agenda items
suggested during the course of the March meeting include
development of standard Weapons Systems Codes (WSC). The
acquisition community uses a standard WSC listing which can be
viewed in the on-line Procurement Coding Manual on the DCMC Home
Page at http://131.66.66.66. Also scheduled for discussion are
AMCL 11/15 interfaces (financial and discrepancy). A suggestion
was made to include outstanding AMCLs at each PRC meeting so that
implementation issues may be addressed. Future agenda items
include discussion of the impact credit card process and
discrepancy reporting under DLMS.

ELLEN HILERT ZNeN ue os

Supply PRC Co-Chair

MARY JANE JOHNSON ee
Supply PRC Co-Chair

-

VERMELLA SAVAGE
MILSTRIP System Administrator

AL HENDERSON
DLMSO Action Officer

DLMSO Action Officer


changes. DLMSO will provide a register of changes so the PRC
will have better visibility. A draft version was distributed and
recommended changes were noted (Enclosure 5 shows revised
version). A separate listing showing the status of ICs will be -
distributed at the May meeting. Discussion of the change process
raised, once again, the issue of when implementation dates should
be requested. Under the DLMS concept, the implementation date is
supposed to be requested when the change is staffed as a
proposal. Conflicts would be resolved and the approved change
issued with the implementation date already established.

Although this procedure was recently confirmed within DLMSO, the
Components continue to feel that it would not be cost effective
or practical. The consensus is that dates based upon proposals
which might change significantly as a result of staffing would be
inaccurate. Reevaluation by design activities to assess the
impact of the changes would increase the time and cost invested
in this piece of the process.

Action: DLMSO agreed to investigate the reinstatement of a
separate Request for Implementation Date process.

March Agenda Items:

a. Proposed DLMS Change 10, Identification of Flight
Safety Critical Aircraft Parts (FSCAP) In Issue, Release, and
Receipt Documents. This change proposal was issued November 13,
1996 (Enclosure 6). The change adds identification of FSCAP to
the Defense Turn-In Document/DLMS transaction. Despite follow-up
action, few responses have been received. During discussion, the
Components raised issue with the necessity for this change based
upon the availability of the FSCAP code with supply catalog data.

Action: Components will document their comments in responses to
the change proposal.

b. Proposed DLMS Change 6, Material Returns
Discrepancies. This change proposal was issued June 24, 1996
(Enclosure 7). The change adds a cautionary statement to
MILSTRIP/DLMS advising shipping activities that they could be
subject to recoupment action for costs incurred by the receiving
activity for discrepant or unauthorized returns. Although some
concurrences and comments were received, many primary addressees
have not responded to this change proposal. Some suggestions
were made to the improve the language of the change. The Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) requested clarification of the financial
interface.

Action: DLMSO will modify the change and address the financial
interface at the May meeting. Additional Component responses to


Approved DLMS Change 3
(Staffed as Proposed DLSS/DLMS Change 6)

1. ORIGINATOR:

a. Service/Agency: DLMSO

b. Originator: Ellen Hilert, Supply Process R
mittee (PRC} Chair, DLMSO, 763-767-6117, DSN 427-61
ellen_hilert@hgq.dla.mil

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA: Supply
3. REQUESTED CHANGE:
a. Title: Material Returns Discrepancies

b. Description of Change: This proposal provides a
cautionary statement that activities initiating material returns
packaging discrepancies, returns of reparable items unaccompanied
by required technical data, and unauthorized returns are subject
to recoupment action for costs incurred by the receiving activity
for repackaging, disposal, or other costs required to correct
discrepancies.

c. Procedures: Revise MILSTRIP Chapter 9, paragraph A/
DLMS, Volume 2, Chapter 12, paragraph 12.1 to include the
following new subparagraph.

“Activities initiating unauthorized material returns or
authorized/automatic returns for which discrepancies
are noted by the receiving activity are subject to
recoupment action for repackaging, disposal, or other
corrective action costs incurred by the receiving vat
activity. Such discrepancies will be documented by the At
receiving activity on a Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR)
(previously Report of Discrepancy (ROD)).

Additionally, failure to include historical
information/documentation, operator/maintenance log

books, engine oil analysis, etc., as required by

Government regulations and/or technical manuals with

the return of reparable items constitutes a

discrepancy. Subsequent recoupment action against the

shipping activity for any related corrective costs may

be imposed.

4. REASON FOR CHANGE: This change was requested at the Military


d. AMC 45, Defense Program for Redistribution of
Assets (DEPRA) Follow-up Timeframes. DLMSO issued an Approved
Change on February 3, 1997 with a revised numerical designation -
of AMC 45 (previously 41) (Enclosure 3). The effective date is
April 4, 1997, The revision was prepared to identify the DEPRA
processing actions when denial status is received during the 30-
day period after which the Redistribution Order (RDO) was created
and to indicate the original intent of the proposed change to
eliminate CB status to the customer by DEPRA when passing the
requisition to the ICP/Integrated Material Manager (IMM) for
processing.

e, Video Training Session. DLMSO has available for loan a
4-hour video-taped EDI training session conducted by Mr. Harry
Featherstone, Logistics Management Institute (IMI). A new 8-tape
collection of segmented training topics is also available for
loan. These tapes were prepared by LMI to support the Defense
Information Systems Agency’s (DISA’s) training.

f. DD Form 1348-2, Issue Release/Receipt Document with
Address Label. DLMSO will clarify current MILSTRIP procedures
regarding the interchangeability of the 1348~1A with the 1348-2
and the authority to use the 1348-2 without preprinted postage
data on the attached address label.

g. DLMS Logistics Data Manager (LDM) Actions. Global
changes recommended by the Supply PRC have been forwarded to LMI
for incorporation in all ICs. These include Point of Contact
(Segment PER/G62) changes; deletion of the extraneous note for
quantity fields; revised language for Universal Time Coordinate
(UTC). Clarification of to/from/copy addressing is being
developed within DLMSO.

h. DLMS Baseline. American National Standards Institute,
ANST X-12, Version 003060 ICs are available on the DLMSO home
page at http://www.dlmso.hq.dla.mil. These are considered the
baseline for the DLMS. Modifications resulting from PRC review
and staffing at the DoD/Federal level are being processed.
Revised ICs will reflect the date prepared and will be posted to
the home page as quickly as possible. Appendix 10E to the DLMS
manual (Enclosure 4) indicates the date of the most current
revision. The ICs published in the hard-copy DLMS manual are
prepared in Version 003050.

i. DLMS Configuration Control. DLMS proposed/approved
change numbering structure was revised based upon the PRC's
comments. Future changes will be referred to as DIMS changes and
will include the functional area impacted in the title. Separate
numbering will be consecutive for approved changes and proposed


IN REPLY
REFER TO

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS
8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD, SUITE 2533
FT. BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

DLMSO :
MAR 3.1 997

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS)} Supply
Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting, March 10-14,
1997

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office
(DLMSO) hosted a Supply PRC meeting on March 10-14, 1997, at the
Headquarters Complex, Ft. Belvoir, VA. The primary focus of this
meeting was DLMS implementation convention (IC) review.
Additional discussion topics are discussed below. The agenda is
shown at Enclosure 1. A list of attendees is shown at Enclosure
2.

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert and Ms. Mary
Jane Johnson, Supply PRC Co-Chairs, and Ms. Vermella Savage,
MILSTRIP System Administrator, provided opening remarks and
reviewed the meeting agenda.

Review of Prior Meeting Agenda Items:

a. AMCLs 11 (MILSTRIP) and 15 (MILSTRAP), Expanded
Materiel Receipt Acknowledgment (MRA) Procedures. DIMSO will
initiate coordination of reporting requirements with the LMARS
Committee and possible elimination of inventory control point
(ICP) reporting under the AMCL 11. Additionally, DLMSO will
review the AMCL 15 MILSTRIP ASH transaction format to verify
proper identification of the customer routing identifier code
(RIC) (DAASC vs ICP).

b. Proposed DLMS Change 1, DD Form 1348-1B, Issue
Release/Receipt Document, and DD Form 1348-2A, Issue Release/
Receipt Document with Address Label. The Services/Agencies were
reminded that they must provide comments to DLMSO. The original
due date was March 10, 1996.

c. PMC 40, Processing Cooperative Logistics Supply
Support Arrangement (CLSSA) Requisitions. DLMSO will release the
Approved Change in accordance with the Service/Agency agreements
reached at the November PRC meeting.

Attachment

Federal Recycling Program o Printed on Recycled Paper


Validation of Force or Activity Designator (F/AD) I Activities
Discussion Summary Notes - PRC Meeting, January 10, 1997
Updated PRC Meeting, March 10-14, 1997

Component expressed concerns in the following areas:

1. Verification of Need: Although there is a wide perception of
abuse, there is no positive evidence specific to F/AD I.

a. Unknown volume/source of abuse.

b. Accuracy of authorized DoDAACs maintained by Joint Staff
J4 uncertain after initial validation. Infrequent update cycle
{last update 1995). The Joint Staff published the list of
authorized DoDAACs February 1996.

2. Possible Misplaced Focus: Crucial need to update F/AD I and
UMIPS definitions. Need further examination of process and
completion of on-going projects before attempting corrective
action. Larger problem enforcing appropriate use of F/AD II and
Tit.

3. Classification Questions: The annual review cover letter J-4
states “The fact that units are FAD I is CONFIDENTIAL.” J-4 is
currently conducting a review of classification status.

4. Authorized Points of Contact (POC): Under Approved Change 9,
the Services are to provide POCs responsible for providing DAASC
with changes to the F/AD I Authorized list.

a. Should J4 be the authorized POC for all Services/
Agencies?

b. Who will serve as the POC for civil agencies, foreign
governments, others?

c. Within the Services, who should be the POC? Alternate
POC? By name or by office?

5, Off-Station Requisitions: Support location DoDAACs generally
appear in the requisition transaction rather than the authorized
F/AD I activity DoDAAC. Major roadblock?

a. Local automated systems may preclude use of outside
DoDAACs.

b. Inclusion of the requisition Project Code could increase

1 Encl 10


Standard Billing System Focal Point Committee Meeting
(MILSBILLS) (96-1), May 7, 1996 in support of approved changes to
the DLAR 4140.55/AR 735-11-2/SECNAVINST 4355.18/AFR 400-54,
Reporting of Item and Packaging Discrepancies. The inclusion of
this cautionary statement within MILSTRIP/DLMS procedural
guidance for material returns provides advance notice to the
shipping activity that they will be held responsible for
reimbursable costs incurred as a result of discrepant shipments.
The goal is to greatly reduce the number of such discrepancies by
shifting the financial burden for corrective actions to the
initiator.

5. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Inclusion of this cautionary
statement within the MILSTRIP Material Returns procedures is
intended to give visibility to all involved that discrepancies
eccurring in material returns shipments may result in necessary
corrective actions for which the shipping activity could be held
financially accountable. There are no known disadvantages.

3. IMPACT: This change reflects a procedural interface between
MILSTRIP, MILSBILLS, and SDR (ROD) procedures. The wording is
intended to focus attention and provide a deterrent to discrepant
shipments. This change is issued in conjunction with DLMSO
memorandum June 24, 1996, Approved Supply Discrepancy Reporting
(SDR) /Report of Discrepancy (ROD) Change 1 (U.S.), Reporting of
Supply Discrepancies. The SDR change includes guidance to
receiving activities on documenting material returns
discrepancies which will support recoupment action as
appropriate. A MILSBILLS change is planned to clarify related
billing procedures alréady in place.